Noninvasive Positive-Pressure Ventilation for Acute Respiratory Failure: Comparative Effectiveness
Rating the Strength of Evidence From the Comparative Effectiveness Review
Throughout this slide set, strength of evidence ratings are assigned to findings of the report. Strength of evidence is typically assigned to reviews of medical treatments after assessing four domains: risk of bias, consistency, directness, and precision. Although these categories were developed to assess the strength of treatment studies, the domains also apply to studies of prevalence and screening. Available evidence for each Key Question (KQ) was assessed for each of these four domains; the domains were combined qualitatively to develop the strength of evidence for each KQ.
- Williams JW Jr, Cox CE, Hargett CW, et al. Noninvasive Positive-Pressure Ventilation (NPPV) for Acute Respiratory Failure: Comparative Effectiveness. Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 68 (Prepared by the Duke Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-2007-10066-I). Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; July 2012. AHRQ Publication No. 12-EHC089-EF. Available at www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/nppv.cfm.
Your slide tray is being processed.